Wait, what? As the former Executive Director of the Congress for the New Urbanism, I've never heard an actual New Urbanist propose "a solution to this by mandating ground-floor retail within every new apartment building, with mixed results." Maybe some planner with a casual acquaintance with the concepts of New Urbanism might think this was a good idea, but real urbanists emphasize context and advocate for fine grained diversity appropriate to each street and neighborhood. Virtually everything else you described as inhibiting nighttime social life are things New Urbanism has vehemently fought without resorting to a one-size fits all formula for communities. Finally, nightlife is part of a vibrant city, but I'd say a better barometer of urban health and vitality is the elaborate ballet of day and evening street life analyzed by Jane Jacobs rather than how late people stay out drinking.
1) You're correct. I was using New Urbanism to refer to the greater urban planning ethos towards density in the last couple decades. Its accurate to say urban planners, not the ideology of New Urbanism.
2) Staying out and drinking isnt the only metric mentioned. Vibrancy after the offices close at 6PM is what I'm getting at. These tend to be places that also serve alcohol but also restaurants, theaters and venues.
You are right, you were talking about more than bars and nightclubs. Thanks for addressing my concerns. New Urbanists agree with your critique. And we have always maintained that while urban design and place making are integral to community and vitality, our Charter acknowledges that physical design is only part of why places thrive — or don’t, as the case may be.
I’d definitely agree that downtown Oakland is pretty dead at night. As is SF.
As for safety, I’d definitely agree with the foot traffic point, because other than Asia (which, beyond just Japan, definitely has a lot more nightlife and is safer), the US and specifically Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco were WAY safer feeling when Pokémon Go was a thing. Tons of randomly wandering people trying to catch Pokémon on their phones at super late hours all over the place.
Weird point to make, but multiple female friends especially have brought up this point wistfully as a time when it felt more comfortable to be outside during late hours. It shows that we too can have safe feeling streets at night, if only there were more people out.
Augmented Reality to the rescue! More seriously, it's hard to disentangle how much of this is due to our built environment and culture. One of the reasons Spain is always listed among the safest countries in the world is that there area almost always people in the streets in the big cities, even early weekend mornings. That's heavily cultural and not easily transferred.
That's half of it. The other half is we have a fair few dangerous people, and for various reasons they tend to especially favor urban areas. In Latin America, city streets can also be dangerous even when moderately crowded.
Pick a random suburb or the business section of some small US town. It's not likely to be crowded but it won't be unsafe either. Contrast that to a random US city downtown after the crowds leave.
Re: “vertical suburbs,” I’ve noticed that almost all of the new student-oriented buildings in Berkeley have amenities such as gyms, study rooms, and even dog runs in the buildings. I don’t imagine this will be great for street life around them, unfortunately.
I live in Oakland and completely agree that a huge factor inhibiting nightlife is the wide and dangerous "stroads" that carve up downtown. What's especially frustrating is that the pent-up energy is there -- people do want to go out and be part of a vibrant scene! But our busy streets won't allow it. The "jewel of Oakland" is Lake Merritt, a lovely spot in the middle of the city that sees picnickers by day and dance parties many Friday (early) nights. But the scene winds down quite early. Everything's over by 9:30 or 10pm and there's nothing open nearby, except the busy 5-lane arterial Grand Ave that cuts off the Lake from the few businesses and restaurants nearby. No open bars with outdoor seating within eyeshot or a place to get ice cream. (There is some great local advocacy for a road diet but ironically one of the biggest opponents is AC Transit, the local bus agency.)
Relatedly, I remember going to a concert at the Fox Theater downtown and, as the show ended, everyone spilled out onto the cramped sidewalk downtown, buzzing with energy, but there was nothing really open. A couple of hot dog carts recognized the potential but that was really it. Outside it was just a traffic jam and honking cars (and crazy/drunk drivers, of course).
Oakland could really take a page from Austin's playbook here and shut down certain streets to traffic at night to start fostering an entertainment district. That's what makes 6th Street such a barhopping scene and live music scene.
A great read here is Mitchell Schwarzer's book on Oakland's history, "Hella Town," which explains how city planners for decades sought to accommodate suburban commuters -- even going as far as to envision a downtown shopping mall with a parking lot directly accessible via freeway exit so suburban women would feel safer. These are loony lead-brained ideas but unfortunately we still do live with the multi-lane arterial relics of that era.
I don't think anyone believes that putting a few ground level retail spaces will fix community vibrancy, but I hope it's a step in the right direction. You're right that they tend to stay empty for a long time, though. There are a few such buildings just a block from me in Santa Clara, and they've been mostly vacant since they've been built. My wife and I are anxiously waiting for a cafe or boba shop or something to open, but so far just a credit union and Stretch Labs.
On the positive side, the community does have wide sidewalks and narrow streets for slow traffic, so there are quite a few people walking around during the day and early evening. It's a nice change of pace from the single family home neighborhoods where you hardly see anyone.
Wait, what? As the former Executive Director of the Congress for the New Urbanism, I've never heard an actual New Urbanist propose "a solution to this by mandating ground-floor retail within every new apartment building, with mixed results." Maybe some planner with a casual acquaintance with the concepts of New Urbanism might think this was a good idea, but real urbanists emphasize context and advocate for fine grained diversity appropriate to each street and neighborhood. Virtually everything else you described as inhibiting nighttime social life are things New Urbanism has vehemently fought without resorting to a one-size fits all formula for communities. Finally, nightlife is part of a vibrant city, but I'd say a better barometer of urban health and vitality is the elaborate ballet of day and evening street life analyzed by Jane Jacobs rather than how late people stay out drinking.
1) You're correct. I was using New Urbanism to refer to the greater urban planning ethos towards density in the last couple decades. Its accurate to say urban planners, not the ideology of New Urbanism.
2) Staying out and drinking isnt the only metric mentioned. Vibrancy after the offices close at 6PM is what I'm getting at. These tend to be places that also serve alcohol but also restaurants, theaters and venues.
You are right, you were talking about more than bars and nightclubs. Thanks for addressing my concerns. New Urbanists agree with your critique. And we have always maintained that while urban design and place making are integral to community and vitality, our Charter acknowledges that physical design is only part of why places thrive — or don’t, as the case may be.
I’d definitely agree that downtown Oakland is pretty dead at night. As is SF.
As for safety, I’d definitely agree with the foot traffic point, because other than Asia (which, beyond just Japan, definitely has a lot more nightlife and is safer), the US and specifically Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco were WAY safer feeling when Pokémon Go was a thing. Tons of randomly wandering people trying to catch Pokémon on their phones at super late hours all over the place.
Weird point to make, but multiple female friends especially have brought up this point wistfully as a time when it felt more comfortable to be outside during late hours. It shows that we too can have safe feeling streets at night, if only there were more people out.
Augmented Reality to the rescue! More seriously, it's hard to disentangle how much of this is due to our built environment and culture. One of the reasons Spain is always listed among the safest countries in the world is that there area almost always people in the streets in the big cities, even early weekend mornings. That's heavily cultural and not easily transferred.
That's half of it. The other half is we have a fair few dangerous people, and for various reasons they tend to especially favor urban areas. In Latin America, city streets can also be dangerous even when moderately crowded.
Pick a random suburb or the business section of some small US town. It's not likely to be crowded but it won't be unsafe either. Contrast that to a random US city downtown after the crowds leave.
Re: “vertical suburbs,” I’ve noticed that almost all of the new student-oriented buildings in Berkeley have amenities such as gyms, study rooms, and even dog runs in the buildings. I don’t imagine this will be great for street life around them, unfortunately.
I live in Oakland and completely agree that a huge factor inhibiting nightlife is the wide and dangerous "stroads" that carve up downtown. What's especially frustrating is that the pent-up energy is there -- people do want to go out and be part of a vibrant scene! But our busy streets won't allow it. The "jewel of Oakland" is Lake Merritt, a lovely spot in the middle of the city that sees picnickers by day and dance parties many Friday (early) nights. But the scene winds down quite early. Everything's over by 9:30 or 10pm and there's nothing open nearby, except the busy 5-lane arterial Grand Ave that cuts off the Lake from the few businesses and restaurants nearby. No open bars with outdoor seating within eyeshot or a place to get ice cream. (There is some great local advocacy for a road diet but ironically one of the biggest opponents is AC Transit, the local bus agency.)
Relatedly, I remember going to a concert at the Fox Theater downtown and, as the show ended, everyone spilled out onto the cramped sidewalk downtown, buzzing with energy, but there was nothing really open. A couple of hot dog carts recognized the potential but that was really it. Outside it was just a traffic jam and honking cars (and crazy/drunk drivers, of course).
Oakland could really take a page from Austin's playbook here and shut down certain streets to traffic at night to start fostering an entertainment district. That's what makes 6th Street such a barhopping scene and live music scene.
A great read here is Mitchell Schwarzer's book on Oakland's history, "Hella Town," which explains how city planners for decades sought to accommodate suburban commuters -- even going as far as to envision a downtown shopping mall with a parking lot directly accessible via freeway exit so suburban women would feel safer. These are loony lead-brained ideas but unfortunately we still do live with the multi-lane arterial relics of that era.
I don't think anyone believes that putting a few ground level retail spaces will fix community vibrancy, but I hope it's a step in the right direction. You're right that they tend to stay empty for a long time, though. There are a few such buildings just a block from me in Santa Clara, and they've been mostly vacant since they've been built. My wife and I are anxiously waiting for a cafe or boba shop or something to open, but so far just a credit union and Stretch Labs.
On the positive side, the community does have wide sidewalks and narrow streets for slow traffic, so there are quite a few people walking around during the day and early evening. It's a nice change of pace from the single family home neighborhoods where you hardly see anyone.